I think to me cubic or faster value increases and that we will mostly have a future with very low risk and that it is only now, or during a few periods that risk will be extremely high. In a sense, I see these assumptions in tension as high value often is accompanied by high risk. I was just made aware that even sending digital being to far-away galaxies looks extremely expensive energy-wise, even if one keep only the minimum power requirement during a multi-year travel between solar systems. I guess in essence, I feel like to justify these assumptions one would have to really look into what these assumptions materially mean, and use historical precedent and reasonable analysis across a wide range of scenarios to see if they make sense. For me this is more intuition and a scepticism that enough work have been done to get certainty of these assumptions. To some degree, I also feel like AI safety was a direction where funders might get more of a feeling "of doing something" - something I have been at fault at myself. Something like just chipping away at the stubborn problems of poverty/global health, or animal welfare is likely to remain "unsolved" problems even with billions more invested. Moreover, they do not have novelty, and these "industries" are less prone to be affected while AI is new and one can see more systemic effects. Maybe this last point actually drives at something supporting AI safety - it might be more tractable in a sense. Sorry this was long and not underpinned by much analysis so would welcome any analysis on these points, especially analysis that might change my mind.

I just have to call out the amazing work by Rethink Priorities and those that funded this sequence of analyses (not sure who that is, would welcome info!): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/WdL3LE5LHvTwWmyqj 

I guess this might be the "last, properly funded EA analysis" unless something came out after that which I missed ("last" in that going forward it seems funders are doubling down on AI and might not rethink this decision in the near future)? I think the takeaway from this work by Rethink Priorities for me is that it is not at all unreasonable to focus on other things than AI, as going all in on AI seemed to require a set of quite extreme beliefs/assumptions. Would be happy to corrected if my simple takeaway might be overly naive.

Yeah if $100 can save you even just 3 filter replacements, that sounds like a good investment. Maybe I should do this myself. For now, I will just hope motor sound + my intuition/tacit knowledge of air purifier air flow is enough for me to realize when a filter definitely needs replacing. Thanks Jesse!

I guess just a last question from me: Does it seem necessary to you to replace filters every 6-12 months as manufacturers suggest? I have run filters for >2 years and cannot really discern any increased load on the fan motors, just listening for changes in motor sound. Nor can I sense any significant reduction in air flow, just feeling the air flow with my hand. I am asking as I am telling people not to replace the filters as often as manufacturers suggests - it is expensive and people might think that their purifiers do not work well after a filter is 6-12 months old.

Do you know why, apart from increased energy usage and perhaps fan wear and tear, one needs to replace filters as pressure increases? My understanding is that filter efficiency does not decrease but maybe I missed something. And I agree measuring the pressure drop is best, but just thinking for some DIY, at-home quick fix without any special tools, it might just make sense to check if the airflow is more or less the same.

Yeah perhaps. But on my purifiers there is at least one screen sorting out a lot of debris. And then I vacuum the filters every now and then. I guess one might notice if the airflow significantly reduces. I am running a test on mine to see how long they last. You have prompted me to get a new filter and later on just test how much air flow is reduced with the old filters - thanks for the inspiration. But I think one can safely run the home air filter for much longer than the 6-12 months suggested by manufacturers.

Great article, makes a lot of sense. It might make sense to launch towards commercial sectors first - there they are more interested in increasing air quality at low cost and low noise. Just realized that some hair salons have purifiers - I think there are lots of small hair particles floating around that I think you don't want to inhale.

On replacing filters: There is actually this study from the national labs that indicate filters hardly need replacement at all. I think it is even worse than razorblades that grow dull - filters last forever! It is a shame the torrent of marketing now has the public believing the filters need frequent replacement - that will be a hard myth to kill for a startup.

Just woke up to what you mention about optimization in HVAC installation, here in Sweden they mount ductwork components with something akin to TDC/TDF - it is literally easier than Lego! It is so fast I was blown away working with it. And no special tools required. Awesome podcast you did btw on Pigeon Hour!

On cause prioritization, is there a more recent breakdown of how more and less engaged EAs prioritize? Like an update of this? I looked for this from the 2024 survey but could not find it easily: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sK5TDD8sCBsga5XYg/ea-survey-cause-prioritization 

Yes, this seems similar to how I feel: I think the major donor(s) have re-prioritized, but am not so sure how many people have switched from other causes to AI. I think EA is more left to the grassroots now, and the forum has probably increased in importance. As long as the major donors don't make the forum all about AI - then we have to create a new forum! But as donors change towards AI, the forum will inevitable see more AI content. Maybe some functions to "balance" the forum posts so one gets representative content across all cause areas? Much like they made it possible to separate out community posts?